Reduction of headache intensity and frequency with maxillary stabilization splint therapy in patients with temporomandibular disorders-headache comorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effectiveness of maxillary stabilization splint (SS) therapy to reduce headache (HA) intensity and HA frequency in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)-HA comorbidity. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using full-arch coverage, hard resin, and maxillary SS therapy were included. Electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, MEDLINE through PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched. The risk of bias was analyzed based on Cochrane's handbook. The search yielded 247 references up to January 28, 2020. Nine RCTs were included at a high risk of bias. The comparison groups included other splints, counseling, jaw exercises, medications, neurologic treatment, and occlusal equilibration. Four studies reported a statistically significant reduction in HA intensity, and five studies reported significant improvement in HA frequency from baseline at 2-12 months in patients with TMD-HA comorbidity treated with a full-arch hard maxillary SS. HA frequency in tension-type HA (TTH) comorbid with TMD diagnoses of myofascial pain (MFP) or capsulitis/synovitis improved significantly with SS than that with full-arch maxillary non-occluding splint (NOS) in two studies. Comparison groups receiving hard partial-arch maxillary splint nociceptive trigeminal inhibition (NTI) showed statistically significant improvements in HA intensity in patients with mixed TMD phenotypes of MFP and disc displacement comorbid with "general HA." Comparison groups receiving partial-arch maxillary resilient/soft splint (Relax) showed significant improvements in both HA intensity and frequency in patients with HA concomitant with MFP. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the improvement of pain intensity at 2-3 months with comparison of the splints (partial-arch soft [Relax], hard [NTI], and full-arch NOS) or splint use compliance at 6-12 months with comparison of the splints (partial-arch Relax and full-arch NOS) versus the SS groups in patients with various TMD-HA comorbidities. In conclusion, although SS therapy showed a statistically significant decrease in HA intensity and HA frequency when reported, the evidence quality was low due to the high bias risk and small sample size. Therefore, further studies are required.

Factors Associated With, and Mitigation Strategies for, Health Care Disparities Faced by Patients With Headache Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To review contemporary issues of health care disparities in headache medicine with regard to race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and geography and propose solutions for addressing these disparities. METHODS: An Internet and PubMed search was performed and literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning disparities in headache medicine. Content was refined to areas most salient to our goal of informing the provision of equitable care in headache treatment through discussions with a group of 16 experts from a range of headache subspecialties. RESULTS: Taken together, a multitude of factors, including racism, SES, insurance status, and geographical disparities, contribute to the inequities that exist within the health care system when treating headache disorders. Interventions such as improving public education, advocacy, optimizing telemedicine, engaging in community outreach to educate primary care providers, training providers in cultural sensitivity and competence and implicit bias, addressing health literacy, and developing recruitment strategies to increase representation of underserved groups within headache research are proposed as solutions to ameliorate disparities. CONCLUSION: Neurologists have a responsibility to provide and deliver equitable care to all. It is important that disparities in the management of headache disorders are identified and addressed.

Migraine Care Challenges and Strategies in US Uninsured and Underinsured Adults: A Narrative Review, Part 2.

OBJECTIVE: To review the challenges and potential solutions in treatment options for quality migraine care in adult patients who are under or uninsured. BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act has improved access to health care for many; however, those who are underserved continue to face treatment disparities and have inadequate access to appropriate migraine management. METHODS: This manuscript is the second of a 2-part narrative review which was performed after a series of discussions within the Underserved Populations in Headache Medicine Special Interest Section meetings of the American Headache Society. Literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning conceptual boundaries and a broad overview of the subject matter. Published guidelines, state-specific Medicaid websites, headache quality measurement sets, literature review, and expert opinion were used to tailor suggested treatment options and therapeutic strategies. In this second part of our narrative review, we explored migraine care strategies and considerations for underserved and vulnerable adult populations with migraine. RESULTS: Although common, migraine remains untreated, particularly among those of low socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status may play an important role in the disease progression, prescription of hazardous medications such as opioids, outcomes, and quality of life of patients with migraine and other headache disorders. There are some evidence-based and guideline supported treatment options available at low cost that include prescription medications and supplements, though approved devices are costly. Resources available online and simple nonpharmacological strategies may be particularly useful in the underserved migraine population. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and discussed migraine treatment barriers that affect underserved populations in the US and summarized practical, cost-effective strategies to surmount them. However, more research is needed to identify the best cost-effective measures for migraine management in underserved and vulnerable patients who are uninsured or underinsured.

Migraine Care Challenges and Strategies in US Uninsured and Underinsured Adults: A Narrative Review, Part 1.

OBJECTIVE: To review the scope of the problem facing individuals with migraine who are under- or uninsured. In this first of a 2-part narrative review, we will explore migraine epidemiology and the challenges that face this vulnerable population. BACKGROUND: Implementation of the Affordable Care Act has improved access to health care for many individuals who were previously uninsured, but there are many, particularly those of certain demographics, who are at high risk for worse outcomes. METHODS: A narrative review was performed after a series of discussions within the Underserved Populations in Headache Medicine Special Interest Section meetings of the American Headache Society. Literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning conceptual boundaries and a broad overview of the subject matter. Published guidelines, state-specific Medicaid websites, headache quality measurement set, literature review, and expert opinion were used to tailor suggested treatment options and therapeutic strategies. RESULTS: Migraine is common, yet remains underdiagnosed and associated with worse outcomes among those of under-represented backgrounds and those who are underinsured or uninsured. Low socioeconomics may play an important role in the disease progression, characteristics, outcome, and quality of life of patients with migraine and other headache disorders. Other barriers to optimal care include time constraints, lack of access to specialty providers, transportation, and financial limitations. CONCLUSION: There are many barriers and challenges that affect people with migraine who are underinsured or uninsured, particularly those of under-represented racial backgrounds and of lower socioeconomic status.